From 3 June 2025 the Employment Court will start publishing its judgments from 24 hours after the delivery date, or the next business day, unless otherwise directed by a judge. Decisions of public interest may be published earlier, as directed by a judge.

You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.

Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.

Search results

3710 items matching your search terms

  1. [2025] NZEmpC 102 The Secretary for Education v New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association Incorporated Te Wehengarua [PDF, 190 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 102 The Secretary for Education v New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association Incorporated Te Wehengarua (Judgment of Judge JC Holden 21 May 2025) PRELIMINARY ISSUE – STANDING TO BRING PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BRING PROCEEDINGS – Secretary for Education may raise a dispute about a clause of a collective agreement as a party to that agreement in accordance with s 129 ER Act – s 129 not to be read down by s 591(b) Education Training Act – Secretary requires leave to bring proceedings in relation to s 26(3) ER Act as per s 29 – leave granted under s 29(f) – Secretary has legitimate interest in paid union meeting arrangements which may affect education service delivery
  5. [2025] NZEmpC 98 The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children v Hill [PDF, 246 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 98 The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children v Hill (Judgment of Judge M S King, 16 May 2025) NON DE NOVO CHALLENGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – USE OF FORCE – SELF-DEFENCE – employee dismissed after using force against rangatahi in youth justice residence – whether employee acted in self-defence – test for self-defence in Crimes Act 1961 applies for disciplinary purposes as referred to in training materials – employee believed themselves to be at risk of harm – employee used force to defend themselves – not reasonable for employee to use force – reasonable alternatives to force available – context of youth justice residence – same conclusion even if Crimes Act does not apply – Authority erred in its application of test for self-defence – employee not justified in using force in self-defence – Authority did not err in its use of previous decisions – Authority entitled to reach different view of facts and application of law to facts as compared to previou…
  7. [2025] NZEmpC 95 Victoria Jeon (AKA Jong Ai Park) as Trustee of the Jesus Aroma Church Trust v Labour Inspector [PDF, 143 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 95 Victoria Jeon (AKA Jong Ai Park) as Trustee of the Jesus Aroma Church Trust v Labour Inspector (Consent Judgment of Judge K G Smith 15 May 2025) CHALLENGE – CONSENT – MINIMUM ENTITLEMENTS – PENALTIES – Labour Inspector and employer settled challenge by consent – identity of employer agreed – employer to pay wage arrears and holiday pay along with interest – employer to repay premiums along with interest – employer to pay penalties to Crown – Authority determination set aside
  8. [2025] NZEmpC 94 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Elements Therapeutic Massage Limited and other(s) [PDF, 192 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 94 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Elements Therapeutic Massage Limited and other(s) (Judgment of Judge M S King, 15 May 2025) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CHALLENGE – Authority issued determination which Labour Inspector considered to be vague – Labour Inspector sought clarification from Authority – Labour Inspector sought to file challenge out of time once Authority issued second determination clarifying the first determination – length of delay lengthy but not unprecedented – much of the delay was explained and justified – some of the delay was not explained or justifiable – prejudice to employees if Labour Inspector is not able to pursue challenge on their behalf – defendant will be prejudiced if challenge permitted to be filed – prejudice to defendant can be mitigated by allowing them to file cross challenge – interpretation issues involving enforcement of minimum entitlement provisions give rise to public interest – no reason…
  9. [2025] NZEmpC 93 CG v Calendar Girls NZ Ltd [PDF, 264 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 93 CG v Calendar Girls NZ Ltd (Judgment of Judge Helen Doyle 13 May 2025) APPLICATION FOR INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION - safety and professional reputation concerns if names are publicised - application is not futile - application granted - APPLICATION FOR AUDIO-VISUAL LINK - concerns can be mitigated via strict adherence to Court guidelines - application granted - CHALLENGE TO OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE - relevance and proportionality - some documents to be disclosed.
  10. [2025] NZEmpC 90 Youtap Ltd v Johnston [PDF, 244 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 90 Youtap Ltd v Johnston (Judgment of JudgeJC Holden 9 May 2025)DE NOVO CHALLENGE – IDENTITY OF EMPLOYER – subsidiary company was employer under employment agreement following novation – employee still able to claim an employment relationship with parent company under s 6 Employment Relations Act – true nature of relationship examined – mutual intention that employment was with subsidiary – employee not controlled by [or integral to] parent company over subsidiary company – no employment relationship with parent company – CONTROLLING THIRD PARTY – section 103B – no existing proceedings against employer to join parent company to
  11. [2025] NZEmpC 91 LDJ v EZC [PDF, 280 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 91 LDJ v EZC (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 9 May 2025) LITIGATION GUARDIAN – CAPACITY – SUFFICIENT INSTRUCTIONS – counsel raised concerns about whether plaintiff has capacity to give sufficient instructions – medical and other evidence indicates that plaintiff is able to understand issues – medical and other evidence establishes that plaintiff is unable to properly exercise sound judgement and reasoning in relation to issues – plaintiff not able to give sufficient instructions – plaintiff is incapacitated – litigation guardian appointed – no conditions placed on appointment
  16. [2025] NZEmpC 87 ELG v KLE (No 7) [PDF, 191 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 87 ELG v KLE (Judgment No7 of KG Smith 2 May 2025) NON-PUBLICATION – non-publication orders not necessary to protect sensitive commercial information – non-publication orders not necessary to protect employment prospects of respondent – non-publication orders necessary to protect confidentiality of settlement agreement signed by parties – non-publication orders made over parties and witnesses – first search order judgment redacted in part
  20. [2025] NZEmpC 82 A Labour Inspector of MBIE v Dao (Judgment (No 2) [PDF, 206 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 82 A Labour Inspector of MBIE v Dao (Judgment (No 2) of Judge Beck, 17 April 2025) FREEZING ORDERS – VARIATION – application to vary freezing orders – some business bank accounts unfrozen – conditions placed on the unfreezing of some business bank acounts – family trust account not unfrozen – mortgage repayments can be facilitated without removing trust account from freezing order – new bank account to be set up for the purposes of receiving and paying ordinary living expenses and legal expenses
  21. 2025] NZEmpC 81 Nand v Idea Services Limited [PDF, 189 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 81 Nand v Idea Services Limited (Judgment of Judge M S King, 16 April 2025) STRIKE-OUT – REHEARING – WITHDRAWN PROCEEDINGS – COSTS – application to strike out application to rehear withdrawn application to file challenge out of time – application to file challenge out of time previously withdrawn due to settlement agreement – no basis for rehearing application as no hearing ever happened on original application – application to file challenge out of time cannot be reinstated or refiled because to do so would be an abuse of process in light of the settlement agreement – increased scale costs awarded – no basis for disbursements for out of town counsel – other disbursements awarded on GST exclusive basis
  22. [2025] NZEmpC 80  AJY v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [PDF, 162 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 80  AJY v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (Judgment (No 2) of Judge Beck, 15 April 2025) CLARIFICATION OF REMEDIES – LOSS OF BENEFIT – claim by employee that they were entitled to retirement leave – employee could have requested retirement leave – employee could have been required to retire on medical grounds – insufficient evidence to find that employee might reasonably have been expected to obtain retirement leave but for unjustified dismissal